290 Ministerio v. CFI

Consti I: Art. XVI Sec.
3: Government
Ministerio v. CFI Officers
290
G.R. No. L-31635 August 31, 1971 FERNANDO, J.: Matt Ledesma
Petitioners: Respondents:
ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCION SADAYA, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU,
Fourth Branch, Presided by the Honorable, Judge
JOSE C. BORROMEO, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY
COMMISSIONER, and THE AUDITOR
GENERAL,
Recit Ready Summary
Ministerio and Sadaya are owners of a lot that used by the Cebu government to widen a road. There was
no proceeding instituted, no payment of just compensation, or no agreement whatsoever. Ministerio
wants to sue for restoration of their possession or for payment of just compensation. The Court of First
Instance ruled against Ministerio saying that this was a suit against the Government, and the government
had not consented to be sued.
The SC held that when a state officer, while claiming to act for the state, violates or invades personal
and property rights, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not
have, such suit is not against the State within the provision that the State may not be sued without its
consent.
Hence, since there was no proceeding for eminent domain established in this case, the respondents
MAY be sued. The Doctrine of Immunity cannot be used to wreak injustice upon the citizens.
Facts
1. On April 13, 1966, Ministerio and Sadaya filed a complaint with the CFI of Cebu, seeiking
payment of just compensation for a registered lot.
2. They alleged that in 1927, the government, through authorized representatives, took physical
and material possession of the lot, and used it to widen Gorordo Avenue, a national road.
o There was no just compensation paid
o There was no agreement at all, written or verbal
3. They alleged that they made repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its
possession
o The Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General REFUSED to restore
possession
4. The lot was appraised at P50 per square meter, or a total of P52,250. After the appraisal, the
complaint was amended, either to give back possession or to pay just compensation.
5. The Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General argued that the suit was one against
the government, thus it should be dismissed BECAUSE there was NO CONSENT of the
government shown.
6. The Court of First Instance ruled against Ministerio saying that this was a suit against the
Government, and the government had not consented to be sued.
o They said that it was unquestioned that the land was used by the government for road
purposes
o There was no evidence of whether or not there was a contract, or of payment
o CFI said that it may be presumed that when the land was taken, payment was made.
They also had no explanation why the case was filed in 1966.
o Their main point was that – granting there was no compensation given, the case is
undoubtedly against the national government and there was NO SHOWING that the
government had consented to be sued.
1
o While it may be contended that the suit was against the Public Highway Commissioner
and the Auditor General
Issues: Ruling
1. W/N the CFI was correct for dismissing the case 1. NO.
Rationale
1. The CFI was wrong.

- The court establishes the rules by which suits against the government are governed and
explains why the suit in this case should prosper.
General rule: The government is immune from suit without its consent.
- To avail of this immunity, it doesn’t even need to be named in the case as a party proceeded
against.
- If it appears that the action would hold the government liable, then the immunity applies.
- So even if the defendants named are public officials, with the government not being named,
the immunity would still hold.
- This is clearly so where a litigation would result in a financial responsibility for the government
such as:
o Disbursement of funds
o Loss of property
- In these cases, the party that may be adversely affected is the government. Thus the defense
of non-suability may be brought.
HOWEVER, it is a different matter where the public official is sued in his capacity for acts
contrary to law and injurious to the rights of a plaintiff
- The state authorizes only LEGAL ACTS by its officers – unauthorized acts are NOT the
act of the state.1
o Thus, an action against these officers by one whose rights have been invaded or
violated is not a suit against the state which requires consent.
- Thus, when a suit is fied against a state officer on the ground that while he claims to act for
the state, he violates or invades the rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or an
authority he does not have, such suit is not a suit against the state that is within the
constitutional provision that the state may not be sued without its consent.
- It follows that the CFI should have passed on the plantiffs right then and there for recovery
of possession, because there was no proceeding for eminent domain, which is required
under the Code of Civil Procedure.
- It is also mandated by the Constitution that the owner be compensated for property taken for
public use.
- The doctrine of immunity from suit CANNOT be used as an instrument for perpetrating
injustice on a citizen.
- Had only the government followed the procedure under the law, there would have been no
complaint filed.
- However, since restoration would not be convenient or feasible, the only relief would be for
the government to give the due compensation to Ministerio.
- The case was remanded to the CFI to determine the compensation entitled.
- The rule is to determine due compensation for lands appropriated by the Government.
The basis should be the price or value at the time that it was taken from the owner
and appropriated by the Government.
1
Bureau of Telecommunications v. Aligean
2
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of January 30, 1969 dismissing the complaint is reversed and
the case remanded to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with law.

290 Ministerio v. CFI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

290 Ministerio v. CFI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

290 Ministerio v. CFI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti I: Art. XVI Sec.

1. The CFI was wrong.

You might also like